With its bipartisan branding, boldface names, and big money, the Campaign to Fix the Debt muscled its way into Washington power politics last summer. But as Congress preps for yet another fiscal showdown, Democrats and Republicans doubt the group has the swat to push either side far enough toward the center to secure its holy grail: a grand bargain that includes entitlement-spending reforms and new revenues that reduce the deficit.

Not even a $25 million war chest is enough to convince congressional insiders that the coalition has the juice to break the partisan impasse. By advocating for entitlement reforms, which Democrats dislike, and new revenues, which Republicans reject, the group may have only succeeded in convincing each party that they aren't pushing the other side hard enough.

"I don't think they advocate incredibly strongly or effectively," said a Senate Democratic aide. "For how much money they have, they should be more effective."

Another Democrat, a Senate leadership aide, put it this way, "They'd get farther if they would be willing to push Republicans on revenues as part of the debt discussion."

And then there's the Republican take: "For Fix the Debt to be successful they have to do a lot of work on the other side of the aisle," said a senior GOP Senate aide. "That's where Fix the Debt's challenges are going to be, on the left. Reform is hard."

The Senate Democratic aide, who is familiar with the group's workings, argued that the group's importance has lessened since the fiscal-cliff battles. As the country approached last year's deadline that would have raised taxes and triggered across-the-board spending cuts, lawmakers panicked. Fix the Debt, the aide said, swooped in and expertly played the role of bipartisan educators.

But this time around, the debates are familiar, as lawmakers discuss funding the government beyond Sept. 30 and raising the government's borrowing limit.

"People aren't really scared, certainly like they were leading up to the fiscal cliff," the aide said.

Not to mention that some Democrats view Fix the Debt warily because it's funded by big businesses including General Electric, which gave $1 million to its parent organization, and JP Morgan Chase, which gave the campaign $500,000. Some Democrats argue that the group tilts conservative.

Fix the Debt spokesman Jon Romano says the group is even better prepared for this fall's looming fiscal showdown than it was for last year's fiscal cliff. Since then, the group has increased its state network by 60 percent and is now active in 33 states and has 625 committee members, 120 former representatives and senators, and 2,500 small-business members.

"Anybody who thinks this campaign was going to go away after the inaction of the last year is just kidding themselves. We're more equipped now for this next phase than we were, frankly, during the fiscal cliff," Romano said. "Our message is going to be loud and clear: We need Congress and the president to put a debt deal in place."

The group plans to push Congress to reconsider the across-the-board spending cuts that went into place earlier this year, painting it as an issue that hurts everyday Americans.

"Fifty-seven thousand kids aren't going to have Head Start because Congress couldn't fix the debt," he said. "One hundred and thirty-six thousand families aren't going to have rental assistance because Congress couldn't fix the debt."

But perhaps more convincing than any rhetoric is the group's billfold. It has the resources to make a lot of noise but has yet to use them effectively. But that may be changing.

According to a source familiar with the campaign's strategy, Fix the Debt is considering using some of that cash to exert influence through campaign politics. "Twenty-five million dollars is a lot of money. Members don't want to go into their reeelection with another headache and there aren't many groups that have that kind of money."

Indeed, that cash buys a lot of organization. The group has sent 150,000 letters to lawmakers, placed 150 state op-eds, and held a July fly-in where 55 people from 19 states held 73 meetings that generated 40 media mentions in 19 markets. And the group plans to do print, TV, and online advertising in targeted districts, Romano said.

But Romano acknowledged there is only so much outside groups can do to push lawmakers toward a deal.

"There's not going to be a deal because of pressure from outside groups like this. There's going to be a deal because they want to lead on this," Romano said. "We're going to put as much pressure as possible on them to get a deal done."

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or
otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec.com does not monitor comments posted to this site (and
has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems
to be in violation of this rule.

Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

This research study aims to understand how state and local leaders regard their agency’s innovation efforts and what they are doing to overcome the challenges they face in successfully implementing these efforts.

The U.S. healthcare industry is rapidly moving away from traditional fee-for-service models and towards value-based purchasing that reimburses physicians for quality of care in place of frequency of care.